A whine about carelessness

[lampilot]

Once upon a time, a "hot" rating for a Lit story, especially one north of 4.6, was a pretty safe indication that said story would be light on glaring errors in grammar and punctuation, let alone malapropisms and misspellings of common words. But in recent years, this has ceased to be true. Just today, I read three highly-rated stories from the last year with the "first time" tag, all by different authors, all bearing the increasingly common hallmarks of careless writing:

-- absence of commas and other punctuation in dialogue, especially transitioning in and out: "We shouldn't do that" she said "we hardly know each other."

-- missed apostrophes in possessives: Jennys car.

-- most glaringly, plural-possessive confusion, i.e. "the doggies tail", which is not only missing an apostrophe but seems to imply the author thinks y-into-ie is used to indicate possession.

Moving beyond mechanics, these stories (and many more from recent years), are sorely lacking in rhythm and structure, especially in dialogue (but especially everywhere else, too) that simply isn't present in similarly-rated stories published a number of years ago. I have spent much time "researching" this (even with my hands free!), and am confident in my unscientific observations.

I have my thoughts on the reasons, but am curious about others', whether y'all have been noticing this at all or with the frequency I have, and whether it detracts from your enjoyment of the story.

Of course I can handle the odd flubb (and sometimes much more than that) but such carelessness graph after graph, page after page...no go.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I doubt the quality of good writing is going down. (I could be wrong about that!) I suspect what's going down is the discrimination of the people voting. I'm not sure about this - and I'm sure someone will happily correct me if I'm wrong - but I think scoring averages have crept up over the years.

On the other hand, who am I to say that they lack discrimination? Maybe they just look for something different than I do. I doubt bad grammar and poorly structured stories are anyone's turn-on, but the people who vote must be responding to something else in the stories. Either that "something else" is so amazing that they don't care about the flaws, or the flaws are a neutral factor.

 

[lovecraft68]

My take is this is an erotica site and many people come here for a hot story and material to get off on. They want hot sex and dirty talk and sexy situations in whatever kink/kinks they enjoy.

For them its about the action

"Oh my god, I was so close to coming, then they used their instead of there and it was a total turn off!"

Said no one ever.

Also, and I went down this road in another thread a couple of weeks ago We don't know anything about the author and maybe its the best they can do.

They post, they're happy and proud, and then someone u comes along with the word careless and bitching about quality and the ratings...

I'd use the word empathy again as I did there, but at this point it doesn't seem like many here understand the meaning.

Oh, and by the way, can you tell me how much you're paying these day's to read these stories?

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

..We don't know anything about the author and maybe its the best they can do.

They post, they're happy and proud, and then someone u comes along with the word careless and bitching about quality and the ratings...

I agree that's important to keep in mind. Even when complaints aren't being applied to an individual writer, it must be discouraging for writers who struggle with those issues to come here and see the same errors they make being dragged. There are authors here who write despite learning disabilities, and plenty of authors who write despite a good educational foundation. I know there are also authors who are just lazy, but I'd hate to lump the two groups together.

I don't think it means we shouldn't view writing critically, but I think we ought to be careful that criticisms are constructive. If the criticism isn't presented in a way that allows someone to improve, what is the value in it?

I really ought to have been more constructive in my original response to this thread, too.

 

[SimonDoom]

I suspect what's really going on -- though I have no scientific way to know -- is bias for the past, a common phenomenon.

I've been reading stories here for at least 15 years. From time to time I'll re-read an older favorite from the good old days. I'm surprised to find the stories often have more errors than I recall. I am probably more critical of grammar and spelling mistakes than I used to be. I don't believe that stories are worse than they used to be, and I doubt the readership is much different.

 

[Bad_Egg]

Once upon a time, a "hot" rating for a Lit story, especially one north of 4.6, was a pretty safe indication that said story would be light on glaring errors in grammar and punctuation, let alone malapropisms and misspellings of common words. But in recent years, this has ceased to be true. Just today, I read three highly-rated stories from the last year with the "first time" tag, all by different authors, all bearing the increasingly common hallmarks of careless writing:

-- absence of commas and other punctuation in dialogue, especially transitioning in and out: "We shouldn't do that" she said "we hardly know each other."

-- missed apostrophes in possessives: Jennys car.

-- most glaringly, plural-possessive confusion, i.e. "the doggies tail", which is not only missing an apostrophe but seems to imply the author thinks y-into-ie is used to indicate possession.

Moving beyond mechanics, these stories (and many more from recent years), are sorely lacking in rhythm and structure, especially in dialogue (but especially everywhere else, too) that simply isn't present in similarly-rated stories published a number of years ago. I have spent much time "researching" this (even with my hands free!), and am confident in my unscientific observations.

I have my thoughts on the reasons, but am curious about others', whether y'all have been noticing this at all or with the frequency I have, and whether it detracts from your enjoyment of the story.

Of course I can handle the odd flubb (and sometimes much more than that) but such carelessness graph after graph, page after page...no go.

https://media.giphy.com/media/44Eq3Ab5LPYn6/giphy.gif

 

[ElectricBlue]

Of course I can handle the odd flubb (and sometimes much more than that) but such carelessness graph after graph, page after page...no go.

Maybe you're a more critical reader now than you were before, maybe the overall quality level has dropped over time, who knows; but without objective evidence this goes nowhere. You might be right, you might be wrong, but unless you're going to step up and offer better editing services, what's the solution (if there is, indeed, a problem)?

Back out of more stories sooner and accept it for what it is, and go find those writers who can write ahead of the bell curve. They're out there, there's no doubt about that.

 

[GroverLang]

I doubt the quality of good writing is going down...I suspect what's going down is the discrimination of the people voting...Maybe they just look for something different than I do...I doubt bad grammar and poorly structured stories are anyone's turn-on,

the people who vote must be responding to something else in the stories.

I agree with you, Nyx, in that the quality of GOOD writing has gone down. I won’t argue with you, when you say, you suspect what’s going down is the discrimination of those voting. But I think it may only be amongst a certain section of the readership. Those who aren’t interested in the story, no matter how good it is, but only in how quickly they can get off.

A writer who deliberately sets out to write those type of stories, to a particular formula, will build up a large following who will read the story with one hand on the 5 star and the other one somewhere else. They aren’t bothered about bad grammar and poorly structured stories. This is where they are looking for something different to yourself.

The sad thing is how many stories with substandard grammar and punctuation seem to slip through the net. I appreciate the volume Laurel deals with each day, and that she can only devote so much time to each story, but there are stories when you only have to read the first few paragraphs to wonder how they got published. But with the volume of stories some must get through. It’s common sense.

 

[yukonnights]

I agree that, in my opinion, scoring is more generous than it was a decade ago. However, I doubt that the quality of writing is a major factor in that. I believe that many readers are very aware of the power of the red H. If they like either, the author or the subject/message of a story, they vote in reward of that. (The LW cliques are a perfect example of this reader understanding.)

For an example; If I can't justify to myself a 5 star vote, I decline to vote at all (which one could argue is a reader bias). But if I want to boost a new author or an author I communicate with, I will give that 5 vote more easily. I know it's a biased vote, but I'm not just voting based on technical proficiency — it's a public "pat on the back".

Usually the type of mistakes referenced in the OP don't overly bother me. That the overall story keeps my interest is the important thing. I may not vote on it, but if I read it to the end, I obviously got my money's worth. And as a sometimes author myself, I have to admit to liking the easier red H's.

 

[yukonnights]

I agree with you, Nyx, in that the quality of GOOD writing has gone down. I won’t argue with you, when you say, you suspect what’s going down is the discrimination of those voting. But I think it may only be amongst a certain section of the readership. Those who aren’t interested in the story, no matter how good it is, but only in how quickly they can get off.

A writer who deliberately sets out to write those type of stories, to a particular formula, will build up a large following who will read the story with one hand on the 5 star and the other one somewhere else. They aren’t bothered about bad grammar and poorly structured stories. This is where they are looking for something different to yourself.

The sad thing is how many stories with substandard grammar and punctuation seem to slip through the net. I appreciate the volume Laurel deals with each day, and that she can only devote so much time to each story, but there are stories when you only have to read the first few paragraphs to wonder how they got published. But with the volume of stories some must get through. It’s common sense.

There does seem to be more of the 'substandard stories' now than a decade ago. But, as you noted, the volume of submissions has gone up. I don't get worked up about the poorly written ones because I kinda like the fact that more people are trying to write.

The 'stroker stories' have their place and audience, so who am I to judge? But I rarely read those 'formulaic' stories — even the ones by popular authors. It only takes about half a page for me to know if I want to keep reading. It's a big world and we're all so very different.

 

[NotWise]

Once upon a time, a "hot" rating for a Lit story, especially one north of 4.6, was a pretty safe indication that said story would be light on glaring errors in grammar and punctuation, let alone malapropisms and misspellings of common words. But in recent years, this has ceased to be true. Just today, I read three highly-rated stories from the last year with the "first time" tag, all by different authors, all bearing the increasingly common hallmarks of careless writing:

I think this is my fault. I just published my first story in First Time, and I've brought the whole place down. I didn't know I was that powerful.

 

[SimonDoom]

I was skeptical of Yukonnight's theory that voting is more generous now, so I did a quick (totally nonscientific) review of the all time toplists, (overall and for specific categories) and it appears that either stories have gotten better over time (I doubt this, but who knows) or that Yukonnights is right: scoring is more generous now. Stories from the last five years appear to dominate the all time scoring toplists to a weird degree, even if you disregard chapters of stories (which dominate for different reasons).

My own very rough impression is that stories have become neither better nor worse over time. There have been threads in the past bemoaning the loss of allegedly superior authors, but usually those threads are started by people who I think simply aren't paying attention to the good authors now.

So, I suspect that, for whatever reasons, scoring is, as Yukonnights says, more generous now.

Personally, it doesn't bother me that poorly edited stories make it past Laurel's screening, because in almost every case I can tell a badly edited story within three paragraphs and click out of it. Those stories take up very little of my time.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Is this your way of volunteering to be a story editor for this site? Start a thread at the Editor's Forum; lots of people would love to receive your input.

This is the most productive suggestion. There are never enough editors to go around.

 

[SisterJezabel]

I tend to vote on stories I get to the end of. If it's less than 2 pages then I may read it to the end even if it doesn't grab me by midway through the first page. I suspect this is why some longer stories get higher ratings.

My latest story has three glaring errors in it that I noted when I read it through after publication. I immediately submitted an edit, but it is still waiting to be approved after a week or so. I used the wrong character's name at one stage and yet this is currently my highest scoring work, albeit with about 100 less votes than usual as it landed the same day as the '50 Ways' comp.

 

[GroverLang]

I tend to vote on stories I get to the end of.

I agree with your attitude. I only vote if I’ve read through to the end. I hate it when I see a comment criticising the story and saying it was so bad they couldn’t be bothered to read any further and because it’s so bad they’ve given it a 1. If they read it to the end and then voted a 1 because they didn’t think it was any good that’s acceptable. The author won’t like it but at least they’ve read it.

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree with your attitude. I only vote if I’ve read through to the end. I hate it when I see a comment criticising the story and saying it was so bad they couldn’t be bothered to read any further and because it’s so bad they’ve given it a 1. If they read it to the end and then voted a 1 because they didn’t think it was any good that’s acceptable. The author won’t like it but at least they’ve read it.

Although, I must say that if you finish a story you regard as a "1" you're probably a masochist.

 

[yowser]

I suspect the issue of higher (or lower) scores perhaps has something to do with the cyclical nature of such a site as this: new authors coming, old ones going, new readership, etc. There do seem to be a greater volume of stories than five years ago.

And it is a reader's site more than an author's site.

One of the harder aspects of scoring for me to accept has been to recognise that there is often little correlation between score and quality. In general, a three star story is unlikely to be as well written as a four star, but there are plenty of (say) 4.1 stories far better written than those rated higher. at the same time, in the same category.

Category of course matters, as some such as LW have a readership with a substantial minority of readers who appear to enjoy 'punishing' a writer with a one star if the story does not fit their taste, regardless of the uniqueness or imagination displayed, or the quality of the writing itself.

It seems safer to regard scores as measures of popularity rather than anything else.

 

[LWulf]

I suspect the issue of higher (or lower) scores perhaps has something to do with the cyclical nature of such a site as this: new authors coming, old ones going, new readership, etc. There do seem to be a greater volume of stories than five years ago.

And it is a reader's site more than an author's site.

One of the harder aspects of scoring for me to accept has been to recognise that there is often little correlation between score and quality. In general, a three star story is unlikely to be as well written as a four star, but there are plenty of (say) 4.1 stories far better written than those rated higher. at the same time, in the same category.

Category of course matters, as some such as LW have a readership with a substantial minority of readers who appear to enjoy 'punishing' a writer with a one star if the story does not fit their taste, regardless of the uniqueness or imagination displayed, or the quality of the writing itself.

It seems safer to regard scores as measures of popularity rather than anything else.

I heavily agree with a lot of what you've said, but I'd quibble about it being a "reader's site." In my mind, it's aimed at readers, obviously, but it's an author's site. The downside of that is the poorer the quality of things to read, may affect how many readers are out there reading the content: If readers see top billings going to low quality stories, then readers may think everything else is much, much worse.

I don't think the OP wasn't talking about ratings as such, but instead about that finer point.

Once again, taken to it's worst possible potential; you can have thousands of authors, but without any readers, it's just an author's site, if you see what I mean. Albeit, a dusty, moldy and seldom viewed one.

* * * *​

This is one reason why I've never paid attention to ratings but always looked on such goings on with concern.

It's one reason why I've never complained why my stories aren't at the top of the list. If one of my stories was pushed to the top of the list, I'd demand that it be taken down. There are much better, well written, stories for such lists.

"More interesting," I'd freely contest. I've read grammatical works of art that had a lot to say about nothing. To me, it's obvious the writer was in a state of doldrums, yet readers and their constituency push such stories to the top because it's a grammatical work of art.

My point is, it goes both ways. The top of the lists should be grammatical works of art that are inspired and passionate. Regardless if it's your preferred subject matter or not that make you keep reading and think "Wow, that's good!"

 

[SisterJezabel]

Although, I must say that if you finish a story you regard as a "1" you're probably a masochist.

Sometimes it is so cringe worthily bad you have to keep reading! You know the types- "She longed to have his torpedo plunge into her pink waters, spreading her sex like the petals of a flower..." There have been some ripper mixed metaphors lately! I should actually keep a list of them!

 

[SisterJezabel]

It's one reason why I've never complained why my stories aren't at the top of the list. If one of my stories was pushed to the top of the list, I'd demand that it be taken down. There are much better, well written, stories for such lists.

I wouldn't be that critical on yourself. There are some authors that have a lot of followers and these followers will often give a 5 regardless of the story. Someone like Komrad1156 who writes beautiful mature stories all with older women and young guys in the military has an immense following of over 2,500. I've read a lot of his work and I'm not sure I'd rate all of them at a 5 (sorry if you're reading Komrad!) but the recent ones in the mature category are all up there.

Then again there is the question, what makes a story a 4.6 or a 4.7 or a 4.8 or a 4.9? This to me is where the greatest discrepancies can be found.

 

[LWulf]

I wouldn't be that critical on yourself.
...

Then again there is the question, what makes a story a 4.6 or a 4.7 or a 4.8 or a 4.9? This to me is where the greatest discrepancies can be found.

I am, by nature, that critical on myself. I'm an INTJ. I'm not overly critical of myself, but I know exactly what my weaknesses are. Sugar coating them doesn't make them more palatable. They are, what they are.

I imagine the discrepancies are just random variations where enough someones thought a story didn't rate a 5, but gave it a solid 4. That it was good, but not that good. There might be no difference in qualities of a 4.6 story compared to a 4.9 story. The 4.9 might just have not gotten enough votes to weigh it down to the same rate of the other story.
This is why I don't pay (that much) attention to story ratings and their subtle variations. Slavish attention to minute ratings will only lead to bipolar anxiety.

I don't understand why you think there is still a question.